The government has to appoint somebody to actually carry out law. There must always be an executive branch to execute the law.
The people running these agencies are all appointed by congress. If congress didn't want DOGE to have access to these systems then they wouldn't've confirmed the appointment of people who would give them access. Or conversely, they would impeach the appointees if the didn't like it.
This is the strength and weakness of a single-party system (grant US has multiple parties but one party is actually in control currently). The party does what the party wants and if it's not what you want then it's tough.
The US Constitution at its heart is based on a system of checks and balances, both between branches of government and the Federal government and States:
> The US Constitution at its heart is based on a system of checks and balances, both between branches of government and the Federal government and States:
First, this is all a non-sequitur to my argument. When the 3 branches are all in agreement on something then there is no reason for any of them to attempt to stop another branch. This is the case when a party has control over all 3 branches. It's not like China, North Korea, or Russia don't have legislatures and judges; it's just they're in agreement with their president.
But to your point, the constitution is not a document of checks and balances. It's just the agreed upon manor that the government will execute and Congress really has no checks on it's power. Congress can impeach/remove the president and judges; it's supposed to be the supreme branch.
Control-f check [1] => 0 hits
Control-f balance [1] => 0 hits
Some of these things that people call "checks and balances" are just straight up not in the constitution. "Judicial review" is not in the constitution.
I believe most people will understand that there is an extraordinarily long and vast tradition and literature on US Constitutional checks and balances, as my earlier link should have amply demonstrated. Google Scholar presently turns up another 359,000 results should that not have proven sufficiently persuasive:
At the time the US Constitution was written, political parties did not exist, nor were they anticipated, though they did in fact develop rather quickly as the US political system evolved. As such, the idea that a party might control one or more branches of government was not anticipated, and might be considered variously a misfeature of politics-as-instituted, or a grievous oversight of the framers. Probably some of A, some of B.
Rather, states and branches were anticipated to have their own interests and act on their accordance. To some extent that's emerged, but the overwhelming power has resided with parties since the late 18th century.
As with other doctrines (e.g., judicial review, a concept fiercely wielded by so-called "originalists"), much if not most US legal and common law theory has evolved over time, occasionally through amendments but far more often through case law and simple convention.
Further: "checks and balances" is a concept originating with Montesque in his book The Spirit of the Law (1748), itself building on John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, and is explicitly referenced in the Federalist Papers, written by several of the framers of the US Constitution, most notably Federalist 51 (by Alexander Hamilton or James Madison), February 8, 1788, titled "The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments", and beginning:
TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. Without presuming to undertake a full development of this important idea, I will hazard a few general observations, which may perhaps place it in a clearer light, and enable us to form a more correct judgment of the principles and structure of the government planned by the convention...
The government has to appoint somebody to actually carry out law. There must always be an executive branch to execute the law.
The people running these agencies are all appointed by congress. If congress didn't want DOGE to have access to these systems then they wouldn't've confirmed the appointment of people who would give them access. Or conversely, they would impeach the appointees if the didn't like it.
This is the strength and weakness of a single-party system (grant US has multiple parties but one party is actually in control currently). The party does what the party wants and if it's not what you want then it's tough.